Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.
With respect, that's bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much... which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.
The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans
Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.
Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you're effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
Don't pretend that it is both sides who refuse to "negotiate", when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.
Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
I mean, this is a succinct description. You're saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.
Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.
Not scared, just unwilling.
Unwilling due to their fear. Of their donors, of their electorate, of losing control. Pick your poison.
The electorate is unwilling. GOP Representatives are actually representing the wishes of their constituents on this one.
A small subset of the electorate sure, made fearful... by grifters, agenda led news, and arms manufacturers who want to sell them guns.
there's already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals
Bringing up bans on military hardware actually supports the slippery slope argument very strongly. You're already thinking about bans.
dang you got me, I don't want rich people to own nukes
No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.
Why? Lots of people are calling for bans.
"Lots of people" are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don't mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let's see how close to a majority that is.
k
Am Democrat. Do not want bans.
I'm fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.
Did you know it's already a felony to not report a stolen gun? If they track it down that far they'd be more than "questioned."
In California it is, yes. That is not the case everywhere. In fact it is only the case in 11 states.
I was stating my preferences for gun laws. Not sure why anyone would downvote that.
In most states, not just CA. And even most without a "duty to report" lets call it, can and will punish you if an unreported gun is used in a crime. Besides, not reporting a criminal stole your gun a good way to get falsely imprisoned for murder which usually people don't want to do, so even without laws requiring one to do so or not specifically enumerating punishment for not reporting if it is used in a crime, it is still seen as a generally good idea to prevent said false convictions.
I didn't downvote you, can't answer for them.
Can you provide a source?
You'd have to look into state laws and previous cases where a gun purchase being tied to some murder got someone convicted. I'm not going to hunt it down to prove it to you but you're free to spend your time doing so.
I mean a source for most states saying there is a duty to report a stolen firearm and that there is halting for failure to report it. I was able to find a list of states where it is indeed illegal but that is only 11.
What I'm saying is "No I do not have an article that lays out state laws succinctly, you'd have to search the actual .gov pages for the laws themselves, and as I am not your paralegal and not getting paid for my work I am declining to do it."
Or you could just do some thinkin' and realize "Yeah if a gun that I did a NICs check on that got stolen shows up in a murder and I don't have an alibi, I might be a suspect in said murder" isn't actually that wild of a situation. If you can't see how it could be likely though, like I said, you're free to search yourself.
Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back it up with a source.
The source is there in the statutes laid out by the state, I'm unwilling to aggregate it for you, as I have a whole other job I'm doing that actually pays me. You are free to look em up yourself.
Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back it up with a source.
At this point I've spent too much time telling you I don't have time for that, so, sorry. Deal with it.
So basically you made a claim that you cannot back up. It's not my job to research claims you make.
Your scenario makes me think you watch waaaay too many cop shows. The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low. The probability that police look into where the gun actually came from is extremely low. Otherwise straw purchasing would not be a thing which it very much is.
The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low
Oh I thought we were talking about the US where guns are the leading weapon used in murder, my mistake.
Probability that a murder is done by a gun != the probability that a specific gun is used to murder someone. I hope you are not naive enough to think that every illegal gun is used to murder people.
Oh definitely not, actually if you look at the math of how many guns there are in the country VS how many are used in murders it's basically just a rounding error. That's actually why it makes me laugh when people demonize all gun owners like they're all just one day away from killing. Statistically that isn't the case. Of course nobody made that claim, so "cool" I guess.
Still though, if they find a gun at the scene with a serial number and NICs says that Steve's Pawn sold it and Steve's Pawn's paperwork says it was sold to Joe Smith, Joe better have a good alibi in most states or else he may find himself in court defending his innocence because "It was stolen and I never reported it" is a very shaky pretense for a defense, the DA could believe you, but it's unlikely.
Or not, whatever, believe what you wish idgaf. I wouldn't take "oh I live in X state so I don't legally have to report stolen guns" to be a good idea myself but you're free to make your own decisions regarding your stolen guns I guess. Personally I'd report it anyway to avoid future questions and hopefully recover my stolen property, but that's just me, obviously you disagree since you're so dead set against me on that.
Oh, unless of course you mean in cases where the gun isn't found, in which case all this is moot because without the gun there's no serial number to tie it to anyone anyway, it may as well be unreported. Of course they have to have the gun. Not sure why you are going on a tangent about "not all illegal guns are used to murder people," because typically ones found at murder scenes were, and if it is tied to a NICs check you did and you haven't reported it stolen, know what? Just come on back here and let us know how it went for ya.
Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.
With respect, that's bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much... which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.
Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.
Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you're effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.
Don't pretend that it is both sides who refuse to "negotiate", when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.
I mean, this is a succinct description. You're saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.
Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.
Not scared, just unwilling.
Unwilling due to their fear. Of their donors, of their electorate, of losing control. Pick your poison.
The electorate is unwilling. GOP Representatives are actually representing the wishes of their constituents on this one.
A small subset of the electorate sure, made fearful... by grifters, agenda led news, and arms manufacturers who want to sell them guns.
there's already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals
Bringing up bans on military hardware actually supports the slippery slope argument very strongly. You're already thinking about bans.
dang you got me, I don't want rich people to own nukes
No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.
Why? Lots of people are calling for bans.
"Lots of people" are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don't mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let's see how close to a majority that is.
k
Am Democrat. Do not want bans.
I'm fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.
Did you know it's already a felony to not report a stolen gun? If they track it down that far they'd be more than "questioned."
In California it is, yes. That is not the case everywhere. In fact it is only the case in 11 states.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/11/stolen-guns-reporting-requirements/
I was stating my preferences for gun laws. Not sure why anyone would downvote that.
In most states, not just CA. And even most without a "duty to report" lets call it, can and will punish you if an unreported gun is used in a crime. Besides, not reporting a criminal stole your gun a good way to get falsely imprisoned for murder which usually people don't want to do, so even without laws requiring one to do so or not specifically enumerating punishment for not reporting if it is used in a crime, it is still seen as a generally good idea to prevent said false convictions.
I didn't downvote you, can't answer for them.
Can you provide a source?
You'd have to look into state laws and previous cases where a gun purchase being tied to some murder got someone convicted. I'm not going to hunt it down to prove it to you but you're free to spend your time doing so.
I mean a source for most states saying there is a duty to report a stolen firearm and that there is halting for failure to report it. I was able to find a list of states where it is indeed illegal but that is only 11.
What I'm saying is "No I do not have an article that lays out state laws succinctly, you'd have to search the actual .gov pages for the laws themselves, and as I am not your paralegal and not getting paid for my work I am declining to do it."
Or you could just do some thinkin' and realize "Yeah if a gun that I did a NICs check on that got stolen shows up in a murder and I don't have an alibi, I might be a suspect in said murder" isn't actually that wild of a situation. If you can't see how it could be likely though, like I said, you're free to search yourself.
Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back it up with a source.
The source is there in the statutes laid out by the state, I'm unwilling to aggregate it for you, as I have a whole other job I'm doing that actually pays me. You are free to look em up yourself.
Don't make a claim if you aren't willing to back it up with a source.
At this point I've spent too much time telling you I don't have time for that, so, sorry. Deal with it.
So basically you made a claim that you cannot back up. It's not my job to research claims you make.
Your scenario makes me think you watch waaaay too many cop shows. The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low. The probability that police look into where the gun actually came from is extremely low. Otherwise straw purchasing would not be a thing which it very much is.
Oh I thought we were talking about the US where guns are the leading weapon used in murder, my mistake.
Probability that a murder is done by a gun != the probability that a specific gun is used to murder someone. I hope you are not naive enough to think that every illegal gun is used to murder people.
Oh definitely not, actually if you look at the math of how many guns there are in the country VS how many are used in murders it's basically just a rounding error. That's actually why it makes me laugh when people demonize all gun owners like they're all just one day away from killing. Statistically that isn't the case. Of course nobody made that claim, so "cool" I guess.
Still though, if they find a gun at the scene with a serial number and NICs says that Steve's Pawn sold it and Steve's Pawn's paperwork says it was sold to Joe Smith, Joe better have a good alibi in most states or else he may find himself in court defending his innocence because "It was stolen and I never reported it" is a very shaky pretense for a defense, the DA could believe you, but it's unlikely.
Or not, whatever, believe what you wish idgaf. I wouldn't take "oh I live in X state so I don't legally have to report stolen guns" to be a good idea myself but you're free to make your own decisions regarding your stolen guns I guess. Personally I'd report it anyway to avoid future questions and hopefully recover my stolen property, but that's just me, obviously you disagree since you're so dead set against me on that.
Oh, unless of course you mean in cases where the gun isn't found, in which case all this is moot because without the gun there's no serial number to tie it to anyone anyway, it may as well be unreported. Of course they have to have the gun. Not sure why you are going on a tangent about "not all illegal guns are used to murder people," because typically ones found at murder scenes were, and if it is tied to a NICs check you did and you haven't reported it stolen, know what? Just come on back here and let us know how it went for ya.
Does it include half of Russia? Because if you have wrong chromosome, you will be trained with weapons even if you actively avoid it.
Also what to do if owner is too dead for this?
There are not two sides here. Try ten, or twenty, or some large number.
We are not talking about sane world.